2/19/13

G.R. No. 187044

RepublicofthePhilippines SupremeCourt Manila

FIRSTDIVISION PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES, G.R.No.187044 PlaintiffAppellee, Present: CORONA,C.J., Chairperson, versus LEONARDODECASTRO, BERSAMIN, DELCASTILLO,and VILLARAMA,JR.,JJ. RENATO LAGAT y GAWAN Promulgated: a.k.a. RENAT GAWAN and JAMES PALALAY y September14,2011 VILLAROSA, Accused Appellants. xx DECISION LEONARDODECASTRO,J.: ThisappealwasfiledbyaccusedappellantsRenatoLagatyGawan(Lagat),alsoknown asRenatGawan,andJamesPalalayyVillarosa(Palalay)tochallengethe CourtofAppeals [1] October 8, 2008 Decision in CAG.R. CR.H.C. No. 02869, for affirming with [2] modificationtheMarch19,2007 Decision ofthe RegionalTrialCourt(RTC),Branch 21, Santiago City, wherein they were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Qualified CarnappinginCriminalCaseNo.214949.
sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/september2011/187044.htm 1/17

2/19/13

G.R. No. 187044

Accusedappellants Lagat and Palalay were charged with the crime of Carnapping as [3] definedunderSection2andpenalizedunderSection14 ofRepublicActNo.6539. The [4] accusatoryportionoftheInformation, reads:
Thatonoraboutthe12th dayofApril2005,atSantiagoCity,Philippines,andwithinthe jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, conspiring, conniving with each other, and mutually helping one another and with intent to gain and without the consent of the ownerthereof,didthenandtherewillfully,unlawfullyandfeloniouslytake,stealandcarryaway one (1) unit YASUKI tricycle bearing Engine No. 161FMJ41535420 and Motor No. LX8PCK0034D002243 then driven and owned by JOSE BIAG, valued at 70,000.00, to the damageandprejudiceoftheownerthereof. Thatinthecourseofthecommissionofcarnapping,oronoccasionthereof,theabove namedaccused,conspiring,connivingconfederatingandhelpingeachother,andwithintenttokill, did then and there assault, attack and wound the said JOSE BIAG with sharp and pointed instrumentdirectingblowsagainstthevitalpartsofthebodyofthelattertherebyinflictingupon himmultiplestabandhackingwoundswhichdirectlycausedthedeathofthesaidJOSEBIAG.

[5] Palalay,ontheother [6] hand,didnotenteranypleahence,apleaofnotguiltywasenteredbytheRTCforhim. [7] On August 1, 2005, both accused proposed to plead guilty to a lesser offense. In [8] theirpleabargainingproposal, theyaskedthattheybeallowedtopleadguiltytothecrime of Homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code and that the mitigating circumstancesofpleaofguiltyand/ornointentiontocommitsograveawrongbeconsidered in their favor. They also asked that damages be fixed at 120,000.00. This proposal was [9] rejected by the prosecution thus, the pretrial conference proceeded. The pretrial Order containedthefollowingfactsasadmittedbytheparties: LagatpleadednotguiltyuponarraignmentonJune16,2005.
1.ThatthecadaverofJoseBiagwasrecoveredalongAngadananandSn.Guillermoroad by members of the police together with Barangay Captain Heherson Dulay and Chief Tanod Rumbaoa,Sr. 2. ThatthetwoaccusedwerearrestedinpossessionofpalayallegedlystoleninAlicia, Isabela. 3.ThatthecauseofdeathofJoseBiagwasmultiplestabandhackwoundsasdescribed
sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/september2011/187044.htm 2/17

2/19/13

G.R. No. 187044

intheAutopsyReportanddeathcertificatewhichshallbesubmittedduringtrial.

[10]

Afterthepretrialconference,trialonthemeritsensued. TheprosecutionfirstpresentedFloridaBiag(Florida),thewifeofthevictimJoseBiag (Biag), to testify on the circumstances leading to Biags disappearance and the discovery of his body, the recovery of Biags tricycle, and the expenses she incurred and the income she hadlostasaresultofherhusbandsdeath.Floridatestifiedthatherhusbandwasafarmer,a [11] barangaytanod,andatricycledriver. OnApril12,2005,ataroundtwooclockinthe morning,herhusbandlefttooperatehistricycleforpublicuse.Itwasaround11:00a.m.of April 13, 2005, when news reached her that their tricycle was with the Philippine National Police(PNP)oftheMunicipalityofAliciaandthatherhusbandhadfiguredinanaccident. After learning of the incident, Florida sought the help of their Barangay (Brgy.) Captain, Heherson Dulay, who immediately left for Angadanan without her. At around 2:00 p.m., [12] [13] Brgy. Captain Dulay informed Florida of what had happened to her husband. [14] Floridathenpresentedincourtthereceipts evidencingtheexpensesshehadincurredfor herhusbandswakeandfuneralandfortherepairoftheirtricycle,whichwasrecoveredwith missingparts.ShealsotestifiedastotheincomeBiagwasearningasafarmer,atanod,anda [15] tricycledriver,andclaimedthathisdeathhadcausedhersleeplessnights. The second witness for the prosecution was the Chief Tanod of Barangay Rizal, Poe Rumbaoa, Sr. (Rumbaoa). He testified that on April 13, 2005, after he and Brgy. Captain DulayreceivedFloridasreport,theyimmediatelywenttotheAliciaPoliceStation,wherein theyfoundBiagstricycle.ThePNPofAliciashowedthemtheidentificationcardrecovered in the tricycle and told them that the tricycle was used in stealing palay from a store in Angadanan,IsabelathatbelongedtoacertainJimmyEsteban(Esteban).RumbaoaandBrgy. CaptainDulaywerealsotoldthattheownerofthetricyclewaskilledanddumpedalongthe AngadananandSanGuillermoRoad.Theywerethereaftershownthetwosuspectsandthe placewhereBiagsbodywasdumped.Rumbaoasaidthathewasabletoidentifythebodyas Biags,whichwasalmostunrecognizablebecauseitwasbloatedallover,onlybecauseBiag [16] hadamarkonhisrightshoulder,whichRumbaoaknewof.
sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/september2011/187044.htm 3/17

2/19/13

G.R. No. 187044

Police Officer 2 (PO2) Arthur Salvador, a member of the PNP in Alicia, took the witness stand next. He testified that on April 13, 2005, he was on duty along with other colleagues at the Alicia PNP Station, when they received a report from Esteban that the cavansofpalaystolenfromhimwereseenatAlicePalayBuyingStationinAlicia,Isabela,in a tricycle commandeered by two unidentified male persons. PO2 Salvador said that upon receipt of this report, their Chief of Police composed a team, which included him, PO2 BernardIgnacio,andPO2NathanAbuan,toverifytheveracityofthereport.AtAlicePalay Buying Station, they saw the tricycle described to them by their chief, with the cavans of palay,andthetwoaccused,LagatandPalalay.PO2 Salvador averred that he and his team [17] were about to approach the tricycle when the two accused scampered to different directions. After collaring the two accused, they brought them to the Alicia PNP Station togetherwiththetricycleanditscontents.PO2Salvadorasseveratedthatwhentheyreached the station, they asked the two accused if they had any papers to show for both the tricycle andthepalay,towhichthetwoaccuseddidnotanswer.Theyallegedlykeptsilentevenafter theywereinformedoftheirrightsnotonlytoremainassuch,butalsotohavecounsel,either of their own choosing, or to be assigned to them if they cannot afford one. PO2 Salvador thencontinuedthatwhentheyunloadedthetricycle,theydiscoveredbloodstainsinsideand outsidethesidecar.HealsopersonallyfoundawalletcontainingthetricyclesCertificateof [18] RegistrationandOfficialReceipt issuedbytheLandTransportationOfficeinthenameof Jose Biag. When they asked the two accused about their discoveries, Lagat and Palalay voluntarily answered that the name in the papers is that of the owner of the tricycle, whom theykilledanddumpedalongAngadananandSanGuillermoRoad,whentheycarnappedhis tricyle. PO2 Salvador alleged that upon hearing this revelation, they again informed Lagat andPalalaythatanythingtheysaywouldbeusedagainstthem,andthattheyhadarightto counsel. Thereafter, they coordinated with the PNP of Angadanan Police Station, and together with the two accused, they proceeded to AngadananSan Guillermo Road, where [19] theyfoundBiagsbodyinaravinejustafterthebridgeneartheroad. Theprosecutionslastwitness,PO2IgnaciocorroboratedPO2Salvadorstestimonyon theeventsthatledthemtothetricycle,the palay,thetwoaccused,andthebodyofBiag.He alsoconfirmedPO2Salvadorsclaimthattheyhadinformedthetwoaccusedoftheirrights
sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/september2011/187044.htm 4/17

2/19/13

G.R. No. 187044

but the latter just ignored them hence, they continued with their investigation. IgnacioaddedthatthetwoaccusedalsotoldthemhowtheykilledBiag,towit:

[20] PO2

A TheyrentedatricyclefromSantiagotoAliciabuttheyproceededtoAngadanan.And upon arrival at the site, they poked a knife to the driver and the driver ran away. They [21] chasedhimandstabbedhim,sir.

Upon crossexamination, PO2 Ignacio averred that they were not able to recover the murderweapondespitediligenteffortstolookforitandthattheyhadquestionedthepeople atAlicePalayBuyingStationandweretoldthatthetwoaccusedhadnoothercompanion. PO2IgnacioalsoadmittedthatwhiletheyinformedLagatandPalalayoftheirconstitutional rights, the two were never assisted by counsel at any time during the custodial [22] investigation. [23] The prosecution also submitted the PostMortem Autopsy Report on Biag of Dr. Edgar Romanchito P. Bayang, the Assistant City Health and MedicoLegal Officer of SantiagoCity.TheReportshowedthatBiagwaslikelykilledbetween12:00noonand2:00 p.m.ofApril12,2004,andthathehadsustainedthreestabwounds,anincisewound,two [24] hackwoundsandanavulsionoftheskinextendingtowardstheabdomen. Aftertheprosecutionresteditscase,theaccusedfiledaMotiontoDismissonDemurrer [25] [26] toEvidence withoutleaveofcourt onthegroundthattheprosecutionfailedtoprove theirguiltbeyondreasonabledoubt.LagatandPalalayaverredthattheirconstitutionalrights on custodial investigation were grossly violated as they were interrogated for hours without counsel,relatives,oranydisinterestedthirdpersontoassistthem.Moreover,theadmissions they allegedly made were not supported by documentary evidence. Palalay further claimed thatRumbaoastestimonyshowedthathehadaswellingabovehisrighteyeandaknife [27] woundinhisleftarm,whichsuggeststhathewasmaltreatedwhileunderpolicecustody. Theaccusedalsoclaimedthatthecircumstantialevidencepresentedbytheprosecution wasnotsufficienttoconvictthem.Theyaverredthatasidefromtheallegedadmissionsthey hadmade,theprosecutionhadnothingelse:theyhadnoobjectevidenceforthebloodstains
sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/september2011/187044.htm 5/17

2/19/13

G.R. No. 187044

allegedlyfoundinthetricyclethemurderweaponwasneverfoundandnoeyewitnessaside fromthepoliceofficerswaspresentedtoshowthattheywereinpossessionofthetricycleat thetimetheywerearrested.LagatandPalalayarguedthattheprosecutionfailedtoestablish anunbrokenchainofeventsthatshowedtheirguiltbeyondreasonabledoubt,thus,theywere entitled to enjoy the constitutional presumption of innocence absent proof that they were [28] guiltybeyondreasonabledoubt. As the accused filed their Demurrer to Evidence without leave of court, they in effect waivedtheirrighttopresentevidence,andsubmittedthecaseforjudgmentonthebasisofthe [29] evidencefortheprosecution. On March 19, 2007, the RTC rendered a Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE in the light of the foregoing considerations the Court finds the accused Renato Lagat y Gawan and James Palalay y Villarosa GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of qualified carnapping and hereby sentences each of them to the penalty of reclusion perpetua. They are also ORDERED TO PAY Florida Biag the sum of Twelve thousand three hundred pesos(12,300.00)asactualdamagesplusFiftythousandpesos(50,000.00)fordeathindemnity [30] andanotherFiftythousandpesos(50,000.00)formoraldamages.

After evaluating the evidence the prosecution presented, the RTC agreed with the accused that their rights were violated during their custodial investigation as they had no counseltoassistthem.Thus,whateveradmissionstheyhadmade,whethervoluntarilyornot, [31] couldnotbeusedagainstthemandwereinadmissibleinevidence. However,theRTCheldthatdespitetheabsenceofaneyewitness,theprosecutionwas able to establish enough circumstantial evidence to prove that Lagat and Palalay committed thecrime,towit: 1.TheaccusedwerecaughtbytheAliciaPNPinpossessionofBiagstricycle,loaded withstolenpalay 2.TheaccusedranimmediatelywhentheysawtheAliciaPNPapproachingthem 3.TheAliciaPNPfoundbloodstainsonthetricycleandBiagswalletwithdocuments
sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/september2011/187044.htm 6/17

2/19/13

G.R. No. 187044

toprovethatBiagownedthetricycle 4. TheAliciaPNPcontactedthePNPofSantiagoCitytoinquireaboutaJoseBiag, andthiswashowthebarangayofficialsofSantiagoCityandFloridafoundoutthat BiagstricyclewaswiththeAliciaPNP 5.BiagleftearlymorningonApril12,2005andneverreturnedhome 6. The accused themselves led the Alicia PNP and Barangay Captain Dulay and [32] RumbaoatowheretheydumpedBiagsbody. The RTC convicted Lagat and Palalay of the crime of carnapping, qualified by the killingofBiag,which,accordingtotheRTC,appearedtohavebeendoneinthecourseofthe [33] carnapping. LagatandPalalayaskedtheRTCtoreconsideritsDecisiononthegroundsthatiterred ingivingfullcredencetothetestimoniesoftheprosecutionswitnessesandinrelyingonthe [34] circumstantialevidencepresentedbytheprosecution. [35] OnMay29,2007,theRTCdenied thismotion,holdingthatthetestimoniesofthe witnesseswerecredibleandsupportedbytheattendingfactsandcircumstances,andthatthere wassufficientcircumstantialevidencetoconvicttheaccused. [36] Lagat and Palalay went to the Court of Appeals, asserting that their guilt was not [37] established beyond reasonable doubt. They averred that circumstantial evidence, to be sufficient for a judgment of conviction, must exclude each and every hypothesis consistent [38] withinnocence, whichwasallegedlynotthecaseintheirsituation.Theyelaboratedon whythecircumstantialevidencetheRTCenumeratedcouldnotbetakenagainstthem: 1.Theaccusedspossessionofthetricyclecannotprovethattheykilleditsowner 2.Theiractoffleeingmaybeduetothestolen palay(whichisnotthesubjectofthis case),andnotthetricycle 3.NoevidencewasgiventhatwouldlinkthebloodstainsfoundinthetricycletoBiag himself. They could have easily been Palalays, who was shown to have a knife
sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/september2011/187044.htm 7/17

2/19/13

G.R. No. 187044

woundand 4. The accuseds act of pointing to the police and the barangay officials the ravine where Biags body was dumped was part of their interrogation without counsel, [39] whichtheRTCitselfdeclaredasinadmissibleinevidence. On October 8, 2008, the Court of Appeals rendered its Decision with the following dispositiveportion:
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated March 19, 2007 of the RTC, Branch 21, Santiago City,inCriminalCaseNo.214949,is AFFIRMEDwiththe MODIFICATION that accused appellants Renato Lagat y Gawan and James Palalay y Villarosa are ordered to pay to private [40] complainanttheincreasedamountof14,900.00asactualdamages.

Inaffirmingtheconvictionoftheaccused,theCourtofAppealsheldthattheelements ofcarnappingwereallpresentinthiscase.TheCourtofAppealspointedoutthatLagatand PalalaywereinpossessionofthemissingtricyclewhentheywereapprehendedbytheAlicia PNP.Moreover,theyfailedtoofferanyexplanationastohowtheycametobeinpossession ofthetricycle.TheCourtofAppealsalsoagreedwiththeRTCthatwhateverconfessionor admission the Alicia PNP extracted out of the accused could not be used in evidence for having been done without the assistance of counsel. The Court of Appeals nonetheless affirmedtheRTCsjudgmentasitwasconvincedthatthefollowingcircumstantialevidence supportedtheconvictionoftheaccusedforqualifiedcarnapping: 1.BiagandhistricyclewentmissingonApril12,2005 2. Lagat and Palalay were found in unauthorized possession of the tricycle on April 13,2005 3. The Alicia PNP, upon inspection of the tricycle, found traces of blood inside it, together with the original receipt and certificate of registration of the vehicle in the nameofJoseBiag 4. PalalayhadastabwoundonhisleftarmwhentheAliciaPNPpresentedhimand LagattoBrgy.Capt.DulayandprosecutionwitnessRumbaoa 5. Biag bore five (5) hack wounds on his body when the Alicia PNP recovered his corpseinaravineand 6.LagatandPalalayfailedtoaccountfortheirpossessionofthebloodstainedtricycle
sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/september2011/187044.htm 8/17

2/19/13

G.R. No. 187044

immediatelyaftertheirarrest.

[41]

The accused are now before us with the same lone assignment of error they posited beforetheCourtofAppeals,towit:
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSEDAPPELLANTS GUILTY OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO [42] ESTABLISHHISGUILTBEYONDREASONABLEDOUBT.

RulingoftheCourt Lagat and Palalay have been charged and convicted of the crime of qualified [43] carnappingunderRepublicAct.No.6539 ortheAntiCarnappingActof1972.Section 2oftheActdefinescarnappingandmotorvehicleasfollows:
Carnappingisthetaking,withintenttogain,ofamotorvehiclebelongingtoanother withoutthelattersconsent,orbymeansofviolenceagainstorintimidationofpersons,orbyusing forceuponthings. Motorvehicleisanyvehiclepropelledbyanypowerotherthanmuscularpowerusing the public highways, but excepting road rollers, trolley cars, streetsweepers, sprinklers, lawn mowers, bulldozers, graders, forklifts, amphibian trucks, and cranes if not used on public highways,vehicles,whichrunonlyonrailsortracks,andtractors,trailersandtractionenginesof allkindsusedexclusivelyforagriculturalpurposes.Trailershavinganynumberofwheels,when propelled or intended to be propelled by attachment to a motor vehicle, shall be classified as [44] separatemotorvehiclewithnopowerrating.

TheelementsofcarnappingasdefinedandpenalizedundertheAntiCarnappingActof 1972arethefollowing: 1.Thatthereisanactualtakingofthevehicle 2.Thatthevehiclebelongstoapersonotherthantheoffenderhimself 3.Thatthetakingiswithouttheconsentoftheownerthereoforthatthetakingwas committed by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using forceuponthingsand
4.Thattheoffenderintendstogainfromthetakingofthevehicle. [45]

sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/september2011/187044.htm 9/17

2/19/13

G.R. No. 187044

Therecordsofthiscaseshowthatalltheelementsofcarnappingarepresentandwere provenduringtrial. Thetricycle,whichwasdefinitivelyascertainedtobelongtoBiag,asevidencedbythe registration papers, was found in Lagat and Palalays possession. Aside from this, the prosecution was also able to establish that Lagat and Palalay fled the scene when the Alicia PNPtriedtoapproachthematthepalaybuyingstation.Totopitall,LagatandPalalayfailed to give any reason why they had Biags tricycle. Their unexplained possession raises the presumptionthattheywereresponsiblefortheunlawfultakingofthetricycle.Section 3(j), Rule131oftheRulesofCourtstatesthat:
[A]personfoundinpossessionofathingtakeninthedoingofarecentwrongfulactisthetaker andthedoerofthewholeactotherwise,thatthingwhichapersonpossesses,orexercisesactsof ownershipover,areownedbyhim.

[46] In LittonMills,Inc.v.Sales, wesaidthatforsuchpresumptiontoarise,itmustbe proven that: (a) the property was stolen (b) it was committed recently (c) that the stolen propertywasfoundinthepossessionoftheaccusedand(d)theaccusedisunabletoexplain [47] his possession satisfactorily. As mentioned above, all these were proven by the prosecution during trial. Thus, it is presumed that Lagat and Palalay had unlawfully taken [48] Biagstricycle.InPeoplev.Bustinera, thisCourtdefinedunlawfultaking,asfollows:
Unlawfultaking,or apoderamiento,isthetakingofthemotorvehiclewithouttheconsent oftheowner,orbymeansofviolenceagainstorintimidationofpersons,orbyusingforceupon thingsitisdeemedcompletefromthemomenttheoffendergainspossessionofthething,evenif [49] hehasnoopportunitytodisposeofthesame.

LagatandPalalaysintenttogainfromthecarnappedtricyclewasalsoprovenasthey were caught in a palay buying station, on board the stolen tricycle, which they obviously usedtotransportthe cavansofpalaytheyhadstolenandweregoingtosellatthestation.In Bustinera,weelucidatedontheconceptofintenttogainandsaid:
Intenttogainor animuslucrandiisaninternalact,presumedfromtheunlawfultakingof themotorvehicle.Actualgainisirrelevantastheimportantconsiderationistheintenttogain.The termgainisnotmerelylimitedtopecuniarybenefitbutalsoincludesthebenefitwhichinany othersensemaybederivedorexpectedfromtheactwhichisperformed.Thus,themereuseofthe
sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/september2011/187044.htm 10/17

2/19/13

G.R. No. 187044

thingwhichwastakenwithouttheownersconsentconstitutesgain.

[50]

Havingestablishedthattheelementsofcarnappingarepresentinthiscase,wenowgo totheargumentofthetwoaccusedthattheycannotbeconvictedbasedonthecircumstantial evidencepresentedbytheprosecution. UnderSection4,Rule133oftheRulesofCourt,circumstantialevidenceissufficient forconvictionif:

(a)Thereismorethanonecircumstance (b)Thefactsfromwhichtheinferencesarederivedareprovenand (c)Thecombinationofallthecircumstancesresultsinamoralcertaintythattheaccused,totheexclusion ofallothers,istheonewhohascommittedthecrime.

InPeoplev.Mansueto,

[51] wesaid:

Circumstantialevidenceisthatevidencewhichprovesafactorseriesoffactsfromwhich thefactsinissuemaybeestablishedbyinference.Suchevidenceisfoundedonexperienceand observed facts and coincidences establishing a connection between the known and proven facts [52] andthefactssoughttobeproved.

Hence, to justify a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the combination of circumstances must be interwoven in such a way as to leave no reasonable doubt as to the [53] guiltoftheaccused. A careful and exhaustive examination of the evidence presented, excluding those that areinadmissible,showthatthecircumstantialevidence,whenviewedasawhole,effectively establishes the guilt of Lagat and Palalay beyond reasonable doubt. We considered the followingpiecesofevidenceasconvincing: First, Lagat and Palalay were found in possession of the tricycle the same day that it, togetherwithitsownerBiag,wasreportedmissing.
sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/september2011/187044.htm 11/17

2/19/13

G.R. No. 187044

Second,LagatandPalalaywerefoundatapalaybuyingstation,withthestolentricycle packedwithcavansofpalayallegedlystoleninAlicia,Isabela. Third, Lagat and Palalay who were then on board the tricycle, jumped and ran the momenttheysawtheAliciaPNPapproachingthem. Fourth, Lagat and Palalay could not explain to the Alicia PNP why they were in possessionofBiagstricycle. Fifth,Biagswalletandhistricyclesregistrationpaperswerefoundinthetricycleupon itsinspectionbytheAliciaPNP. Sixth,Biagsbodyborehackwoundsasevidencedbythepostmortemautopsydone onhim,whilehistricyclehadtracesofbloodinit. The foregoing circumstantial evidence only leads to the conclusion that Lagat and PalalayconspiredtokillBiaginordertostealhistricycle.Directproofthatthetwoaccused conspired is not essential as it may be inferred from their conduct before, during, and after [54] theircommissionofthecrimethattheyactedwithacommonpurposeanddesign. The piecesofevidencepresentedbytheprosecutionareconsistentwithoneanotherandtheonly rationalpropositionthatcanbedrawntherefromisthattheaccusedareguiltyofkillingBiag tocarnaphistricycle. Whenapersoniskilledorrapedinthecourseoforontheoccasionofthecarnapping, the crime of carnapping is qualified and the penalty is increased pursuant to Section 14 of RepublicActNo.6539,asamended:
Section14.PenaltyforCarnapping.Anypersonwhoisfoundguiltyofcarnapping,asthis termisdefinedinSectionTwoofthisAct,shall,irrespectiveofthevalueofmotorvehicletaken, bepunishedbyimprisonmentfornotlessthanfourteenyearsandeightmonthsandnotmorethan seventeen years and four months, when the carnapping is committed without violence or intimidation of persons, or force upon things and by imprisonment for not less than seventeen yearsandfourmonthsandnotmorethanthirtyyears,whenthecarnappingiscommittedbymeans of violence against or intimidation of any person, or force upon things and the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall be imposed when the owner, driver or occupant of the carnappedmotorvehicleiskilledorrapedinthecourseofthecommissionofthecarnapping orontheoccasionthereof.(AsamendedbyR.A.No.7659.)(Emphasisours)
sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/september2011/187044.htm 12/17

2/19/13

G.R. No. 187044

Astherewasnoaggravatingcircumstanceattendantinthecommissionofthecrime,the RTCproperlyimposedthepenaltyofreclusionperpetua. Inconformitywithprevailingjurisprudence,weaffirmtheawardof50,000.00ascivil indemnity ex delicto for the death of Jose Biag and 50,000.00 as moral damages for the provenmentalsufferingofhiswifeasaresultofhisuntimelydeath.However,whenactual damagesprovenbyreceiptsduringtrialamounttolessthan25,000.00,asinthiscase,the awardoftemperatedamagesfor25,000.00isjustifiedinlieuofactualdamagesofalesser [55] amount. Thus, an award of 25,000.00 as temperate damages in lieu of the amount of 14,900.00thattheCourtofAppealsawardedasactualdamagesisproperinthiscase. Both the RTC and the Court of Appeals failed to consider that under Article 2206 of the Civil Code, the accused are also jointly and severally liable for the loss of the earning [57] [56] capacityofBiagandsuchindemnityshouldbepaidtohisheirs. In Peoplev.Jadap, thisCourtsaid:
Asarule,documentaryevidenceshouldbepresentedtosubstantiatetheclaimfordamagesforloss ofearningcapacity.Bywayofexception,damagesforlossofearningcapacitymaybeawarded despitetheabsenceofdocumentaryevidencewhen(1)thedeceasedisselfemployedandearning lessthantheminimumwageundercurrentlaborlaws,inwhichcasejudicialnoticemaybetaken of the fact that in the deceased's line of work no documentary evidence is available or (2) the deceasedisemployedasadailywageworkerearninglessthantheminimumwageundercurrent laborlaws.Inthiscase,nodocumentaryevidencewaspresentedtoprovetheclaimofthevictims heirsfordamagesbyreasonoflossofearningcapacity.However,thevictimsfathertestifiedthat at the time of his sons death, he was only 20 years old and was working as a mason with a monthly income of 3,000.00. We find the fathers testimony sufficient to justify the award of [58] damagesforlossofearningcapacity.

Biags widow, Florida, testified that Biag worked as a farmer, tanod, and tricycle driver, and that his income amounted to 40,000.00 per cropping season as a farmer, 2,000.00permonthasa tanod,and300.00perdayasatricycledriver.However, since theprosecutionfailedtopresentanydocumentpertainingtoBiagsappointmentasa tanod, orthatheactuallyworkedasafarmer,weshallconsideronlyhisearningsasatricycledriver. [59] Accordingtothedeathcertificate submittedbytheprosecution,Biagwas56yearsoldat thetimeofhisdeath.
sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/september2011/187044.htm 13/17

2/19/13

G.R. No. 187044

Theamountofdamagesrecoverableforthelossofearningcapacityofthedeceasedis based on two factors: 1) the number of years on the basis of which the damages shall be computedand2)therateatwhichthelossessustainedbytheheirsofthedeceasedshouldbe fixed.Thefirstfactorisbasedontheformula(2/3x80ageofthedeceasedatthetimeof his death = life expectancy) which is adopted from the American Expectancy Table of [60] Mortality. Netincomeiscomputedbydeductingfromtheamountofthevictimsgross incometheamountofhislivingexpenses.AsthereisnoproofofBiagslivingexpenses,the [61] netincomeisestimatedtobe50%ofthegrossannualincome. Thus,thelossofearning capacityofthedeceasediscomputedasfollows: [62] NetEarningCapacity=lifeexpectancyx[grossannualincomelivingexpenses] =2/3[80ageattimeofdeath]x[grossannualincome50%ofgross annualincome] =2/3[8056]x[109,500.0054,750.00] =16x54,750.00 =876,000.00 WHEREFORE, we AFFIRMwith MODIFICATIONtheOctober8,2008decision of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. CR.H.C. No. 02869. Accusedappellants Renato Lagat y Gawan and James Palalay y Villarosa are found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubtofthecrimeof QUALIFIEDCARNAPPING andaresentencedtosufferthepenalty ofreclusionperpetua.Theyarehereby ORDEREDtopaytheheirsofthevictimJoseBiag the following: (a) 50,000.00 as civil indemnity (b) 50,000.00 as moral damages (c) 25,000.00 as temperate damages (d) 876,000.00 as loss of earning capacity and (e) interestonalldamagesawardedattherateof6% perannum fromthedateoffinalityofthis judgment. SOORDERED.
sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/september2011/187044.htm 14/17

2/19/13

G.R. No. 187044

TERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTRO AssociateJustice WECONCUR: RENATOC.CORONA ChiefJustice Chairperson LUCASP.BERSAMIN MARIANOC.DEL AssociateJustice CASTILLO AssociateJustice MARTINS.VILLARAMA,JR. AssociateJustice CERTIFICATION

PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitution,Icertifythattheconclusionsin theaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriter oftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision. RENATOC.CORONA ChiefJustice

sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/september2011/187044.htm 15/17

2/19/13

G.R. No. 187044

[1] Rollo ,pp.217pennedbyAssociateJusticeHakimS.AbdulwahidwithAssociateJusticesPortiaAlioHormachuelos andTeresitaDyLiaccoFlores,concurring. [2] Records,pp.126133. [3] AsamendedbyRepublicActNo.7659. [4] Records,pp.12. [5] Id.at22. [6] Id.at21. [7] Id.at28. [8] Id.at38. [9] Id.at41. [10] Id.at39. [11] TSN,January9,2006,p.10. [12] Records,p.4. [13] TSN,January9,2006,pp.36. [14] Records,pp.98A98I. [15] TSN,January9,2006,pp.713. [16] TSN,April20,2006,pp.36. [17] TSN,September18,2006,p.5. [18] Records,p.8. [19] TSN,September18,2006,pp.416. [20] TSN,November15,2006,pp.410. [21] Id.at9. [22] Id.at1321. [23] Records,pp.9496. [24] Id. [25] Id.at104110. [26] RulesofCourt,Rule119,Section23. [27] TSN,April20,2006,p.10. [28] Records,pp.108109. [29] RulesofCourt,Rule119,Section23,paragraph2. [30] Records,p.133. [31] Id.at130131. [32] Id.at131132. [33] Id.at131133. [34] Id.at135138. [35] Id.at141142.
sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/september2011/187044.htm 16/17

2/19/13

G.R. No. 187044

[36] Id.at143. [37] CArollo ,p.29. [38] Id.at34. [39] Id.at3536. [40] Rollo ,p.16. [41] Id.at14. [42] CArollo ,p.33. [43] AsamendedbyRepublicActNo.7659. [44] RepublicActNo.6539,Section2. [45] Peoplev.BernabeandGarcia ,448Phil.269,280(2003). [46] G.R.No.151400,September1,2004,437SCRA488. [47] Id.at502. [48] G.R.No.148233,June8,2004,431SCRA284. [49] Id.at295. [50] Id.at296. [51] 391Phil.611(2000). [52] Id.at629. [53] Peoplev.Casitas,Jr.,445Phil.407,417(2003). [54] Peoplev.Sube,449Phil.165,176177(2003). [55] Peoplev.Magdaraog ,G.R.No.151251,May19,2004,428SCRA529,543. [56] Peoplev.Sirad ,390Phil.412,426(2000). [57] G.R.No.177983,March30,2010,617SCRA179. [58] Id.at196197. [59] Records,p.9. [60] Peoplev.Librando ,390Phil.543,559(2000). [61] Peoplev.Templo ,400Phil.471,494(2000). [62] Peoplev.Verde,362Phil.305,321(1999).

sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/september2011/187044.htm

17/17